New answers tagged

5

As ebv commented $\ce{N}$ primarily was on proto-earth. I'd say, originally from the thermonuclear reactions in the star (CNO cycle) that is responsible for the protoplanetary disk our solar system formed. According to this article $\ce{N}$ in the proto solar nebula was primarily in the form of $\ce{N2}$. $\ce{N}$ rarely forms mineral specimens, it ...


-5

There was some free nitrogen in the secondary atmosphere, and also some ammonia (NH3). Ammonia is present today in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn and other gas giants in the outer solar system. The main constituent of the Earth's primeval atmosphere was carbon dioxide, which also makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. The ammonia ...


1

This seems like a World Building question. I presume that on your imaginary planet something, perhaps an asteroid strike, has created a huge bowl 50 km deep. On the rim of the bowl, the atmospheric pressure and composition are the same as at sea level on Earth. You want to know what conditions would be like at the bottom. In some respects a bit like Venus. ...


6

Do these "ozone-depleting substances" also have infrared-absorbing greenhouse impact unrelated to their ozone-depleting chemistry, or is the story more complex? Yes, the paper (I have access) actually said that the warming is because of the strong direct radiative forcing of the ozone-depleting agent rather than because of their ability to destroy ozone. ...


0

The linked article seems poorly written. It refers to unexplained climate models and doesn't link the actual paper. In any case the most intuitive assumption is that the missing ozone doesn't reflect the sun UV rays, in this case it would be the opposite of the greenhouse effect, increasing the incoming of radiation instead of stopping the outgoing ...


12

The Global warming potential (GWP) describes how much global warming a particular gas may induce in a particular time period. It is often expressed in terms of CO₂-equivalent. The best known greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and water vapour (H₂O). Water vapour is short lived and therefore its emission is not a primary climate ...


1

tl,dr: The direct effect of burning most of the fossil fuels (6 to 10°C temperature rise) may be survivable for some. But that does not take into account secondary effects triggered by the warming, like heat waves, ocean deoxygenation, flooding, melting of ice caps, etc. The study below is already a bit dated, latest research has shown that earlier ...


1

Although conventional oil, gas and coal reserves total between 829 and 1,501 GtC, estimates of the global recoverable fossil fuel resource including oil shales range upwards from about 4,000 GtC. If exotic resources, especially methane hydrates, are included the total may be 15,000-25,000. Millenial timescale carbon cycle and climate change in an ...


3

The short answer is that using atmospheric nitrogen as a feedstock for industrial processes doesn't really affect the climate per se. It does mess with the environment (primarily through deposition of nitrogen fertiliser) but this is a separate issue. The problem from a climate point of view, is that the process is virtually certain to emit a lot of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included